Carrying a signal is never free. Even within a cable system, there are still bandwidth limitations. For example, they could free up that spectrum to make way for higher speed internet connections.

Given how TWC is now forced to compete with google fiber, it wouldn't surprise me if this was the reason they dropped that channel.

For this reason, a lot of new TV networks will actually pay the cable carrier to carry their network in order to penetrate the market. Once they gain the viewers, they can go on either paying nothing or charging.

If you really want to watch al jazeera, you can always subscribe to satellite, they don't really have much in the way of bandwidth contention issues, and I'm sure they'll carry that channel since it is just replacing an existing one.

Oh please. Carrying a 480i SDTV channel accounts for basically zero bandwidth use on a digital cable system. Time Warner could drop a single analog channel off their system and free up space for a dozen digital SD channels.

Time Warner will carry crap like the "Gospel Music Channel" but they won't carry an important world news broadcaster.

Capacity is a lame excuse when we aren't even talking about a HD channel here.

I'm sure reclaiming that 7% of a single QAM256 channel and the 3 Mbps of bandwidth Current TV uses will free up enough capacity to compete with Google's 1 Gbps fiber product.

Well let's apply occham's razor for a second here. What's the more likely scenario:

1) TWC, which is practically run by Ted Turner (a very outspoken liberal who used to own Turner cable before it merged with TW) is in a conspiracy to censor free speech.

Time Warner, Inc. and Time Warner Cable are two entirely separate companies. Ted Turner has nothing to do with Time Warner Cable.

Glenn Britt is the CEO of Time Warner Cable and appears to be pretty clearly a Republican. Glenn Britt donated $2,000 each to the Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees, as well as $2,500 to Mitch McConnell's 2014 re-election committee.

Examining Britt's donations reveals that he is an unprincipled slimeball willing to donate to Democrats as well to get what he wants but he sends the bulk of his money to Republicans.

Google Fiber? LoL. They only compete with GF in 1 actual market. KC,KS/MO. That is the same divsion and NOT the entire company. TWC as a whole doesn't dictate how that area is run as far as Internet goes. That is why speeds and pricing are always different.

If they were going to carry the channel later, why take it off now??? It shows that TWC has no plans on ever bringing the channel back later.

Why is it jumping to conclusions? They could have dropped the channel long ago, or better yet never offered it to start off with. And if they're going to "consider" their options in the future after dropping it, you can bet it won't be back. And the spectrum cry is BS. If TWC cared about the spectrum use on their networks as a whole, they'd be moving over to SDV completely or some other way to compete. Heck, they could deploy IPTV or even FTTH with some mid-sized changes to the network as a whole, but won't even do that. Instead their focused on their "Signature Home" and "1hour install windows" that others have been doing well before them.

That particular channel was once LINK, World News, then Current, and now apparently Al Jazeera. It looks to me like this channel hasn't ever had much viewership, and is just kind of the turd that keeps getting kicked around. Why bother keeping it if that trend doesn't look to change any time soon? I mean ask yourself, how many people do you know that will actually regularly tune in to Al Jazeera?

I think TWC probably asked themselves the same question, and are acting accordingly.

As for IPTV and FTTH, that would take a long time and a lot of money to do. Not only are you looking at deploying new cable, but also completely field replacing CPE and throwing out standby CPE. Also if I'm not mistaken, TWC already does SDV.

And while people like you and I really want FTTH, most people don't even know what the hell that is. They'd be spending a ton of money to change to a technology that might never pay for itself.

Mind you I'm not defending TWC, they're one of those asshole companies that sticks the CCI flag on all channels. Personally I hope google kills them. However I don't think there's somebody sitting behind a desk somewhere plotting their next evil deed with their pinky pointed at their mouth. Things like the CCI flag and AJ being pulled off are more likely the result of bureaucracy.

Ok, you win, I'm sure that TWC is involved in a global conspiracy to silence al jazeera. I'm sure that the illuminati and the new world order are ultimately behind it, and TWC is just one of their pawns.

Happy now?

Tune in later, maybe they'll do some more faked moonlanding shots, and the CEO is probably the marksman who was waiting in the grassy knoll.

So are 30-40% of all Americans, depending on the poll, so what's your point? The political views of the CEO dictated this decision? Why don't they drop MSNBC then? Could it be that MSNBC actually has viewers?

Read his post history, earlier he accused me of racism for simply disagreeing with him. He strikes me as being one of those morons who picket outside of wal-mart because they had a sale on dorito's for 99 cents while wearing a guy fawkes mask.

Re: Open Mind

Oh please. Carrying a 480i SDTV channel accounts for basically zero bandwidth use on a digital cable system. Time Warner could drop a single analog channel off their system and free up space for a dozen digital SD channels.

Time Warner will carry crap like the "Gospel Music Channel" but they won't carry an important world news broadcaster.

Capacity is a lame excuse when we aren't even talking about a HD channel here.

I'm sure reclaiming that 7% of a single QAM256 channel and the 3 Mbps of bandwidth Current TV uses will free up enough capacity to compete with Google's 1 Gbps fiber product.

I suspect more people watch "crap like" GMC than Current.

This isn't about about AJ-E. Its about Current.

AJ's purchase signals an influx of cash into the failed enterprise - an opportunity for TWC to renegotiate. Its all about money, not editorial bias.

Myself, I find AJ-E has more "news" than CNN, and ironically, with less anti-American bias.

That particular channel was once LINK, World News, then Current, and now apparently Al Jazeera. It looks to me like this channel hasn't ever had much viewership, and is just kind of the turd that keeps getting kicked around. Why bother keeping it if that trend doesn't look to change any time soon? I mean ask yourself, how many people do you know that will actually regularly tune in to Al Jazeera?

Sorry but this argument makes very little sense... you are saying that since the channel keeps changing it's content it has no viewership so TW should change its content?

The change from Current to Al Jazeera IS a change of content, regardless of who does it. If TW dropping the channel were not politically motivated, they would simply go with the change and make a decision based on its ratings. The people arguing that the station gets no ratings are leaving out the fact that there is almost no one that carries it. How exactly can a channel have ratings when it is unavailable? There is no doubt the channel would have higher ratings than some of the crap TW is keeping.

The change is political. Your Illuminati comment not withstanding, American media is not willing to let alternate ideas into the American mainstream where they can help it. They want to preserve the status quo where they are in control of what the majority of Americans see and think about. It is very similar to the virtual blackout of 3rd party presidential candidates and I won't be a bit surprised if other outlets also drop them.

It wouldn't take much money to deply FTTH on a cable network. They can easily do so with as much fiber as they have in the field. They need to replace the last what 900 feet to the customers maybe a little more? And instead of replacing the lines, they can use the same ones and pull the coax out and run the fiber right inside, the same as Buckeye Cable was trying with Owns Corning cable. And if smaller companies are deploying FTTH TWC has no reason why they can not. And may not pay for itself? How about, not having to do tech visits to install service? Ship the STB and be done with it, they could activate the entire house and the ONT remotely, Service calls would be down to basically nothing, You wouldn't have to worry about Joe Blow down the street stealing cable and screwing up the entire plant in that area. More HD, More Internet, real time video to the home using STBs and the new Skype/Asus phones that are coming out. TWC could do it, they just flat out don't want to.

And Google won't kill them. 1 Market of TWC's is nothing for them when they have countless other towns and in some areas entire states of service. And Google won't be expanding anytime soon, if at any.

revenue from carriage? if the channel is FREE for them, they don't need to generate anything since they're not paying for the content that it has. Plus TWC is FREE to run their own ads over the channels they do broadcast on their system. So yes they'd be making money on that even if the channel is FREE to them.